Scaling Up the Values Themselves

The fifth chapter develops a radical sustainability framework by examining the socioecological values in sustainability experiments that exist in different political-economic contexts, the ecovillage in the United States and the urban farm in Cuba. It asks: What are the environmental values and stories that each case demonstrates? An argument is made for a paradigm shift from human’s war with nature to human’s collaboration with nature to regenerate a thriving biosphere. This means shifting Western culture away from that of atomized, competitive, self-interested individual consumers who use technology to dominate nature. And it means shifting toward a new culture that values community ties, cooperation with the socionatural world, “plentitude” or sufficiency, local self-reliance, and physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being for all. In addition, it means creating an economy built on social justice and environmental regeneration.

COMMUNITY PROPERTY CLAIMS IN THE PERSONHOOD PERSPECTIVE: PART 1

Under the property and personhood theory the projection by individuals of their personhood into the physical world gives rise to property claims over tangible objects and natural resources. However, the property and personhood theory is generally used as a justification for private property, and it is not clear whether a community personhood can be extended into the physical world, giving rise to communal claims over natural resources, such as land. The property and personhood theory distinguishes between two types of proprietary claim: fungible and personal. Fungible property refers to property that is held purely instrumentally, whereas personal property is property that is bound up with the holder, and should be protected against competing fungible claims. This two-part article argues that community claims to property can be justified by the property and personhood theory, and that the law should recognize these claims, although it fails to do so. The personal claim should establish a community’s entitlement to a natural resource and prevail over the fungible claim of a private landowner. However, current practice does not prioritise the community claim, because the claim is not universally understood. The dominant voice in property narrative is not that of a cohesive and mutual self-interest group, but rather the self-interested individual. Recent legislative amendments have purported to implement the policy of empowering local communities, in particular by increasing community participation in deciding on the use and allocation of resources. However, these policies have proved little more than a Trojan Horse that have perpetuated the favouring of the private property holder over a community claim.

A Communitarian Utility Function and its Social and Economic Implications

The term ‘communitarianism’ is often identified with ‘altruism’: an individual is taken to be communitarian-minded if he or she is concerned with the well-being of others, and not only with his or her own well-being. While communitarianism may embrace altruism, it is most appositely viewed as having a broader connotation. Consider, for example, the puzzle of voting behaviour, discussed by Amitai Etzioni (1988) and many others (including, very recently, Aldrich (1997)). Casting one's vote entails a cost, albeit usually a small one: however, if there are large numbers voting, then one's own vote has a negligible effect on the outcome. An altruist might therefore rationally refrain from voting (just as an entirely self-interested individual would), since he incurs a cost, and neither he nor anybody else receives a benefit. And yet, millions of people the world over regularly vote in elections. Other examples could also be given.‘Group-oriented’ behaviour has been the focus of a number of recent studies. C. Clague (1993), for example, examines the roles of guilt and shame in discouraging tax evasion, and informally discusses how social influences may affect the strength of these sentiments. R. Naylor and M. Cripps (1993) examine the influence of social custom on individuals' propensity to join trade unions, while P. Nelson (1994) argues that in choosing which party to vote for people assign some weight to the preferences of persons they associate with.

Microcomputers: Basic Choice Factors

In the last few years a computing revolution has been started. We have arrived at a point where an individual can have access to apersonalcomputer that has real advantages over larger minicomputers and mainframes for a number of significant applications. When the further step is taken of providing a communications link between that personal computer and those larger systems, the overall result is a combination of capabilities of unprecedented potential.As in any revolution, there have been problems and mistakes along the path. Indeed there are still shortcomings and hazards to be avoided. Nonetheless, there are personal computing systems available which offer many advantages for a wide spectrum of academic and professional people. This document is intended as an overview of what is currently marketed, providing reference points for the interested individual.

Collective Action and the Fallacy of the Liberal Fallacy

The problem of whether the rational, self-interested individual will voluntarily subscribe to a large group providing collective benefits is examined, using the perspectives of Hardin's application of game theory and Olson's application of economic theory. The arguments in each case are held to be unsatisfactory, and the same analysis cannot automatically be applied to all problems involving collective action. The subscription to large groups normally represents a distinct sub-class of problems, the solution to which, contrary to the established wisdom, is that the rational, self-interested individual with a net benefit (together, perhaps, with the irrational one with a net loss) will voluntarily subscribe to a group providing a collective good.